-- Nelson Retires! ;-) --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission report for June 27:

"LITTLE ROCK (AP) _ As the outgoing chairman of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Sheffield Nelson has seen everything from wildlife management areas grow in numbers to the first of the Arkansas Youth Shooting Sports Program state championships.
The Little Rock lawyer's term ends June 30. Nelson was appointed by Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000...
During Nelson's tenure, the state received international attention when, in 2004, the ivory-billed woodpecker was found not to be extinct, but living in Arkansas.The several sightings in Arkansas have been mostly in an area north of Brinkley near the Cache River and Bayou DeView."

Meanwhile, as we patiently await final report summaries for the prior search season, including full disclosure of all sightings and acoustic data, and automatic camera data continues to be monitored/processed, some skeptics are rushing to declare the searches forever done... in a manner more reminiscent of 17th century witch hunts than 21st century science, many continue to operate from wholly unproven (and unprovable) assumptions (about IBWO habits/behavior/needs) misleadingly offered up as facts. Here's a likely FACT: Most Ivory-billed Woodpeckers had feathers and two eyes! Skeptics' presumptions aren't even in the same ball park as true facts. For myself, I'll stick with the presumption that at least one of the sightings from the last few years is authentic, simple as that.

Russell and Whitehead spent a couple hundred pages proving that 1 + 1 = 2, as part of their effort (1000's of pages) to demonstrate that mathematics was a complete and internally consistent system of logic (...in the end they failed, once it was shown that unprovable assumptions always lurk behind the scenes). Unrecognized, deceptive notions underly all scientific debate, from truly rigorous fields like mathematics to the mushy likes of field biology... in the end, sometimes such assumptions turn out to be true; the problem is they can never be assumed so ahead of time while the debate rages; and yet that is exactly what many choose to do, rather than waiting for all evidence to be gathered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Pulliam's Take --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many know that Bill Pulliam has commented off-and-on for the last couple years on the Ivory-billed saga (I think with a reasonable amount of respect from both sides), so folks may be interested in his latest take on the subject here:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2007/06/ivorybills-26-months-later.html

I would simply add the following to Bill's thoughts, regarding why after 2+ years of scrutiny we still lack an agreed-upon, clearcut photo of a living Ivory-bill (and I've said all this before):

this is a bird that likely spends most of its time high in the canopies, where it will be difficult to see or clearly identify, let alone photograph. Another chunk of time is spent inside tree cavities where it is literally invisible to human eyes. And so, not surprisingly, most sightings occur when it is in flight, which means quite naturally these are relatively brief encounters as so often experienced (and these birds can cover a lot of ground). Yes, one would hope to find the bird at a nesthole or a low foraging site --- indeed such is almost required to readily obtain the desired photograph --- but if the bird is exceedingly scarce in numbers in a given locale this too can prove keenly difficult... I see nothing extreme or outrageous in putting forth such an argument. IF, by now but a few Ivory-bills hang on in a few disparate locales, the pattern and type of occasional sightings claimed likely mimic what one might expect. Of course one hopes that somewhere there remains an ever-so-slightly more significant population, or else we may indeed be facing functional extinction, but in any event results thus far, while disappointing, are not that difficult to explain.

Needless to say, for a variety of reasons, I remain hugely optimistic that the species not only exists but does so in multiple locales; but the far-more-significant $10,000 question is, will they ever be documented well enough to persuade all cynics? I suspect my answer to that is also a resounding (if slightly more hesitant) yes... but I also suspect by that time, it may be too late to matter... and that is when certain skeptics, not the believers, will have an incredible amount of explaining to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Birders World Redux --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might be a good time to review again some of the past Ivory-billed sightings of merit (there are 100's more claims, but these are a few of the more credible reports over the last several decades), as noted in this old Birders World article:

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=471

I believe #13 is in error, or at least Jackson was not the observer so far as I'm aware. [edit: it IS correct as noted in comments below] What is important to recognize is the full range of territory these sightings cover (and none of the past reports from South Carolina are even included here, despite now being a hub of interest), and the implications that even this very limited survey has for how much searching may yet be called for.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Bollocks --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very disappointing to see British researcher Martin Collinson post as "FACTS" on his blog, statements that are at best oversimplifications and at worst simply rubbish (don't know if he was merely trying to be provocative --- I've been known to say things on occasion just to stir the pot a bit ;-) --- or if he actually believes these falsehoods):

"FACT - IBWOs were never that difficult to see. FACT - their calls were incessant and carried over half a mile. FACT - their calls do NOT carry over 60 years echoing round the woods since the last ones died!"

Although there are some reports in a few distant historical locales of easy to find/see Ivory-bills this was not generally the case, and by Tanner's day (let alone decades later) they were quite difficult. Though convinced the species persisted in both South Carolina and Florida Tanner was unable to ever find them himself. Even in the Singer Tract he found them only with the aid of a guide who had essentially lived amongst them and knew where to find their nestholes; even then Tanner reports the birds were generally heard first and only later seen. Moreover, no one can say with any certainty whether the habits/behavior of tiny samples of birds residing in pre-1945 Louisiana can even be predictive of the behavior of any remnant population persisting today in various states.

The nature of their calls is also in wide dispute; while they could be noisy on occasion, when in pairs, it certainly is wrong to imply that calling 'incessantly' was the norm or even commonplace, nor did their calls routinely extend "over half a mile" by most accounts, and in any event this would clearly be dependent on habitat, terrain, and other factors. Finally, even if you believe them extinct, nobody knows when the last one died (60 yrs. ago, 30 yrs. ago, 10 yrs. ago, 22 days ago???), certainly not someone cloistered in Britain in 2007.

And still the skeptics think that just because alternative explanations of data are offered, those alternatives MUST automatically be opted for. What a wonderful world it would be if we all just got to pick our own alternative explanations for anything we chose, but that ain't science. If skeptics don't like the Arkansas and Choctawhatchee data then throw it out; ignore it; forget it ever appeared in print; it need be paid no attention. The sightings of this species in multiple states pre-2000 are alone enough to warrant extensive ongoing searches. What part of the full history of the Ivory-bill don't skeptics understand, that causes them to think its existence hinges on one blurry videotape or 2 locales out of the entire southeast.
Martin is right about one thing however, this issue will most likely eventually live or die "by empiricism".... now if only skeptics will permit empiricism to go forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Paradigm Shifts, Sightings, Field Marks, Oh My --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a restful 3 days off from blogging turned into 6 --- anyway, loooong post... mostly stuff covered in the past:

Can't say I've ever been a huge fan of Thomas Kuhn's work, but I would acknowledge that in a squishy, philosophical way, his idea of "paradigm shifts" does apply to some aspects of science history. If the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is eventually documented to everyone's satisfaction maybe what we'll need is a sort of paradigm shift in ornithology. Initially, there will be amazement voiced at the IBWO's persistence; words like "incredible," "unbelievable," and "miracle" being carelessly tossed about, especially by prior skeptics attempting to cover their own posteriors on the subject. BUUUUT again... there is nothing amazing in a creature adapted to remote swampland hanging on for 60 years in small numbers under the radar of Man's lackluster attention; though scientific hubris may make it seem so; nothing 'amazing' in recognizing that our knowledge and abilities are imperfect, and that needles in haystacks can be hard to find (let alone photograph).

"Extinction" is an extraordinary event, and IT requires extraordinary evidence, above-and-beyond conjecture. Never again should the passing of 60 years without a photo constitute evidence for extinction of a species known to use such poorly-traversed habitat. Skeptics continue to knitpick the weakest data out there (sounds, foraging sign, cavities...), because it is easy to do, and I s'pose the more vocally critical they are the more untenable they think the IBWO's existence sounds (like focussing intensely on all the weak points/gaps/uncertainties in evolution in order to conclude that evolutionary theory is unsustainable). But what we have across all the decades are sightings, sightings, SIGHTINGS by individuals who are very familiar with Pileated Woodpeckers, yet who say they've seen Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. And sightings are the essence of birding.

A recent, widely-cited Audubon study reports huge declines in several US bird species over the last 40 years, yet it is based largely on BRIEF, UNDOCUMENTED, UNVALIDATED, NONREPLICATED sightings (from count reports), comparing data that is four decades apart!! The variables are immense and hugely uncontrolled. Scientifically speaking, one might make the case that this data is simply "crap," despite all the statistical manipulation they've done to it (...still impossible to weed out lies and mistakes from true and accurate sightings in count datapoints) --- but in truth, looked at broadly enough and with enough caution, count data over time often turns out to be quite good data, accurately reflecting identifications in the field, since, in general, birders are not liars! So a study that could be taken to task by knitpickers, will not be, and need not be, especially since it jives with what common sense, personal experience, and intuitions already told most birders beforehand. Unfortunately, in the Ivory-bill arena, common sense, personal experience, and intuition, lead different people to completely opposing conclusions.

Despite the emphasis often placed on "field marks" MOST bird identification is the result of 'jizz' or gestalt appearance, and always has been. Field marks came along as a nifty way to introduce birding to greater numbers of people and are certainly useful in cases of difficult IDs, but the typical bird identification in the field does not include running through a checklist of field marks --- and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker IS NOT a difficult ID for an experienced birder in any event. I would advise those who believe that "brief" sightings are soooo unacceptable to please eliminate them from your future count reports (since clearly you believe other possibilities cannot be ruled out under such circumstances) --- and this will greatly help out count compilers too, by eliminating probably 50+% of all reports they must sort through : - ). Here's a thought experiment:

You walk into a room of 30 people and scanning faces quickly locate your best friend; pretty easily done. But could you now write a description of that person's face good enough to allow a total stranger to walk into the same room, and by scanning faces alone, also pick out your friend? Assuming no defining characteristic (6" scar on left cheek, patch over right eye, 4 inch purple nose ring), I doubt it. In writing a "description" of your friend you are in essence writing "field marks" for identification, but your own recognition of the friend is based on a 'gestalt' recognition of that individual's appearance. What you can do in a moment by 'jizz' as it were, a stranger will have great difficulty doing using your 'field marks' and likely end up with several possible choices (because field marks are often LESS-defining than 'jizz' in many instances). Some recent bird volumes have re-focussed attention on the overriding importance of gestalt features in bird identification, because field marks, while crucial on occasion and wonderful as an initial learning tool, are, in the grand scheme of things vastly overrated and only occasionally employed in bird identification --- some might argue that they ARE routinely employed, but at a less than conscious level, but that merely reduces them to further gestalt qualities when they operate below consciousness.
Or some will counter that it doesn't matter if field marks are rarely used in bird identification because they ARE used in cases of rare or unusual sightings. But here's the rub: experienced birders usually know (or can look up) the key field marks for an unusual sighting. You either do or don't trust a fellow birder --- when they report such key field marks after-the-fact they can easily lie (or simply be the victim of false memory) --- IF you believe such a recitation, then you might just as well believe their ID'ing of the bird in the first place without the recitation; the case of the IBWO is illustrative: those reporting Ivory-bills but noting few field marks are told their sighting isn't valid, and those who report field marks are told they must be mistaken or lying, so tautological are the skeptics' biases (...essentially, boiled down, 'you couldn't have seen an IBWO because it is extinct, and we know it's extinct because no one has seen one').

Personally, I'm immediately suspicious of past IBWO sighting claims that include a litany of 'field marks' (as are many IBWO investigators) --- it is too easy to regurgitate these from a field guide or other source after-the-fact; so easy that such recitation becomes almost meaningless; yet in today's atmosphere just such a recitation is required, especially of any novice birder. No, what impresses me more (in general) are sightings by experienced birders, who say they saw an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and they knew it in a flash (before they even thought about field marks), because THAT is what the reality would almost certainly be, given the uniqueness of this species. THAT is the norm in bird identification. The 'jizz' and total context is primary; field marks secondary.

And it is not enough for skeptics to say that "everyone makes mistakes from time to time." Any scientific claim can be challenged in such a loose manner. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe, maybe... of course alternative explanations are always possible, but they too must be given credence, not hoisted out of thin air. Believers are told they must produce a photograph for their case, but skeptics too then must demonstrate that experienced birders who make Ivory-bill claims either have a history of lying or pattern of rash, mistaken claims; skeptics can't be allowed to simply conveniently write off these lone instances as ad hoc "mistakes" (occurring over and over) if there is no history or pattern of such for a given individual.

So keep your eye on the ball --- sightings --- and don't get distracted by incessant blather over sounds, signs, blurry video, and other peripheral, even extraneous subject matter. Keep in mind too, that only a single sighting need be real for the Ivory-bill to be extant; whereas 100% of all sightings must be false, for the skeptics' case to hold forth (I like those odds :-). In the meantime there's a lot of habitat to check out (might even take more than a couple of weekends to do it), and waaaaay too early to throw in the towel in yet another rush to judgment on this species, thought extinct and re-found at least twice before in its history. IF the bird is indeed extinct searchers will simply keep building the case for skeptics (who should be eternally thankful for the assistance :-)).

I think I'll close with these famous words from Donald Rumsfeld, just for-what-it's-worth:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

....here's hoping for a long, restful summer, and maybe a paradigm shift sometime next year. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- YouTube Offering --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Ivory-bill reporting from Discovery News available on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOqNJP8y7Ek&NR=1

Nothing new of course (except getting to hear Martin Collinson's fine British accent : - ), and solely focussed on Arkansas and the Luneau video yet again, but worth a look if you enjoy video.

--- All of which reminds me, that Cornell originally said they'd be replying to Collinson's analysis (Pileated vs. Ivory-bill flight comparison), but as yet I've not seen it --- if their rejoinder is indeed out there somewhere and I've missed it, someone please point me in its direction...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Article On a Searcher --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article on searcher and grad student Chris Saker:

http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=8643

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------